Want privacy in package delivery? Better choose carefully!

Date sort Score sort
Pollo Blanco

Pollo Blanco

Free Ranging
13 Years
Jun 8, 2010
1,706
4,951
546
Western Washington
Seems UPS violated thier own policy of confidentiality here:

Massachusetts smokers are horrified by the state tax collectors, who acknowledge that they've obtained the names and addresses of dirtcheapcig.com customers but refuse to divulge their source.
The two possible culprits: DirtCheap and the United Parcel Service, which the company used to ship cigarettes. DirtCheap's lawyer told the Boston Globe that his client did not turn over the customer lists but said the state had obtained UPS spreadsheets that have delivery information.

Wow!! How about that. It goes on to say;

Note that if a lawsuit had been filed, UPS and DirtCheap would be required to turn over their records. That's the normal discovery process that takes place in lawsuits, and no firm could be faulted for complying with a proper court order. But no lawsuits were filed at the time the taxocrats began sending out the threatening letters. That means that if UPS did divulge customer records, it may have done so voluntarily, a horrific privacy breach if true.

I guess there's a reason they wear brown shirts.
wink.png



http://www.euro.cigarettesforless.com/cigarettes_article/cigarettes_page3.html​
 
Call me stupid here, but wouldn't UPS have to divulge if there was reasonable cause to believe a law was being violated??

Like we (the gov't ) have reasonable cause to believe that Body Parts R Us may be shipping human body parts across state lines in violation of the no shipping body parts law and they are using your delivery service. If shipping AND receiving body parts are both illegal doesn't the carrier have to give up the shippers AND the receivers??

Am I misunderstanding something here??
 
I have WHAT in my yard? :

Call me stupid here, but wouldn't UPS have to divulge if there was reasonable cause to believe a law was being violated??

Like we (the gov't ) have reasonable cause to believe that Body Parts R Us may be shipping human body parts across state lines in violation of the no shipping body parts law and they are using your delivery service. If shipping AND receiving body parts are both illegal doesn't the carrier have to give up the shippers AND the receivers??

Am I misunderstanding something here??

Yes, one small detail, called the 4th Amendment to The Constitution.


Note that if a lawsuit had been filed, UPS and DirtCheap would be required to turn over their records. But no lawsuits were filed at the time the taxocrats began sending out the threatening letters.

In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has also ruled that certain searches and seizures violated the Fourth Amendment even when a warrant was properly granted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution





I have WHAT in my yard? :

........Like we (the gov't ) have...............

So how long have you been employed by the govenment?​
 
Quote:
Same thing happened to a friend way out West in the People's Republic of King County.

Different sales company, but the same shipping company. A coincidence?
 
It was a hypothetical statement not stating that I worked for the government....
roll.png


Generally speaking most corporations prefer to avoid getting sued over other people violating the law. If you want privacy in your shipping try to avoid breaking the law.
 
I have WHAT in my yard? :

It was a hypothetical statement not stating that I worked for the government....
roll.png


Generally speaking most corporations prefer to avoid getting sued over other people violating the law. If you want privacy in your shipping try to avoid breaking the law.

I haven't broken the law, and to assume just because someone received a package they have broken a law is a rather gestapo way to look at someone, isn't it?

I thought the collective 'we' assumed due process of law, but apparently the collective 'we' as in government does not, and neither does UPS, which is exactly the point I was trying to make.

Thanks for your help.
smile.png
 
Hmm, when they passed the law against shipping tobacco here I can remember reading that both the USPS and UPS were going to cooperate with the state trying to catch people skirting the law and would report anyone receiving shipments from companies with tobacco related names. Here, at least, they were pretty upfront about it. Hence, why I never even tried.
wink.png


Did your friend in King get hit with felony charges?
 

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom